Petitioner Patricia Pollock has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that, in part, reversed and remanded a property division in a marital dissolution case on the basis that the trial court had erred in interpreting the terms of a marital settlement agreement between the parties and had not yet determined whether the settlement agreement, as properly interpreted, represented a just and proper division of the parties' divisible property under ORS 107.105(1)(f).

On review, the issues are:

(1) Does ORS 107.104(1)(a) authorize a trial court to specifically enforce provisions of mediated agreements between spouses that have not yet been reduced to judgment, irrespective of whether those provisions are equitable, because such enforcement supports the Oregon policy of promoting settlement?

(2) Does a statement in the parties' mediated agreement to the effect that the agreement was to "resolve all claims between the parties" necessarily suggest waiver by the parties of their rights to pursue discovery beyond the signing of the mediated agreement?

(3) Should a trial court presume that parties to a mediated agreement pending divorce have fully considered the nature and extent of the parties' assets?

The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.